What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431268 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5431268?

Rubbish Removal: $3,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431268?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656443-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431268 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5431268?

Rubbish Removal: $3,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431268?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13656443-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Esperanto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431268 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431268 — net $3,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: and cleaning	$3,400.00	Rubbish removal: and cleaning
Net award	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,400.00

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For 4 R Properties Ltd $3,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the property are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Only the property manager Mr Shukla for the landlord attended today’s hearing.
On the 21 April 2026 I heard the landlord’s claims for water and rent owed. At that hearing the landlord advised that it had amended its claim to seek compensation for damage to the property, rubbish removal and cleaning. I adjourned the matter so that the tenants could be properly informed of the claims that the landlord was now making, and the parties could file any further evidence.
The tenancy ended on the 22 January 2026. The landlord took possession of the property on the 21 January 2026 Mr Shukla completed an inspection. A copy of the inspection report completed by Mr Shukla was provided to the Tribunal. The report overview reports the condition of the property as messy and notes the damage as: The property was in the mess. There were multiple holes and damages in the walls of lounge, sperate toilet, bedroom-4,Lights missing in the Lounge, Bedrrom-1&2Laundry two big hole. Damage in the back of the bedroom-2Door Handle missing in the bedroom-2Rubbish in the backyard and behind the garage Window glass broken in the Lounge-2 (near kitchen)Oven door broken and stove 2 element not working. Small room beside the garage lot of stuff and rubbish in there Lawn mowing needs to be done Extract fan not working in the bathroom Mould in the separate toilet ceiling in the bedroomLounge-2 door scratch marks on the door.
Mr Shukla today confirmed that the claims that the landlord was making were: a. Insurance excess of $10,000.00 for damage to each room. b. Carpet and installation whole house. c. Rubbish removal and cleaning $3400.00 d. The filing fee.
The property is a 60+ years old brink and tile 4-bedroom home on a large section. The tenants have lived at the property since 18 July 2022. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of the inspection report at the beginning of the tenancy that shows the condition of the property at that time.
Mr Shukla became the property manager six months before the tenancy ended. He says that during an routine inspection he noticed that the tenant was keeping dogs at the property which they were not permitted to do. He gave the tenants a breach notice for keeping dogs and it appears from the correspondence provided to the Tribunal that the tenants decided to move not long after that as they did not want to remove their dogs. Did the tenants leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all of their rubbish?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied from the inspection report provided and the evidence of Mr Shukla that the tenants did not leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and did not remove all their rubbish.
Mr Shukla’s description of the property being left in a mess is accurate. The photographs show that the tenants have simply taken what they wanted and left all their other belongings behind. There is a lot of large old furniture left behind and in the garage there is also considerable furniture, lounge suites and mattresses. In an area where the tenants’ dogs slept there are two mattresses and bedding, that Ms Shukla describes as being covered in dog faeces.
Mr Shukla tells me that the landlord employed someone to clean up the house and yard and remove all rubbish. He has provided evidence that the landlord paid that person $3400.00.
Whilst that amount is considerable, it appears reasonable for the nature and extent of the work that was required to clean up this property to a reasonable standard and remove the tenant’s belongings and rubbish left behind.
I award the landlord this cost.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the property?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the carpets, put holes in numerous walls throughout the property, broke a window in the lounge, broke the door off the stove, and damaged paint work on walls , windows and doors and walls throughout the house from where the dogs had scratched.
At today’s hearing Mr Shukla produced a quote from Scope Works Limited dated 12 February for repair works to the property. That quote details work required in each room of the house. That quote was provided to the landlord’s insurers Tower Insurance who then assessed what work would be covered by insurance and the insurance excess for that work.
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for 10 rooms at $1000.00 per room.
The landlord says that the carpet was not covered in the quote and says that this is additional to the insurance claim.
Mr Shukla confirmed that the landlord has not yet done any of the work it is claiming for.
I then learned that the landlord has now sold this property on or about the 18 March. A google search of the property conducted during the hearing and shown to Mr Shukla, has the sale photographs which show that the property has been cleaned and cleared, but that not much or indeed any, of the work claimed by the landlord as damage needing repair had not been done before the property was sold. The only difference was that the carpet had been removed.
Mr Shukla tells me that he is not sure what if any work was done but accepts that the photographs appear to show the house that has not been remediated.
There is no evidence that the landlord has suffered any loss. The claimed losses by the landlord will never be realised as the landlord has not and does not intend to carry out any repair work quoted or do reinstate the carpet.
The landlord provided no evidence that the landlord had suffered a diminution in value of the property on sale.
Given that the landlord has suffered no loss, then the landlord’s claim for costs for repair of the property are not proven and therefore dismissed. Filing fee.
The landlord has not proved the bulk of its claims and therefore I do not award the filing fee or grant name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5431268 — net $3,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: and cleaning	$3,400.00	Rubbish removal: and cleaning
Net award	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,400.00

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For 4 R Properties Ltd $3,400.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the property are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Only the property manager Mr Shukla for the landlord attended today’s hearing.
On the 21 April 2026 I heard the landlord’s claims for water and rent owed. At that hearing the landlord advised that it had amended its claim to seek compensation for damage to the property, rubbish removal and cleaning. I adjourned the matter so that the tenants could be properly informed of the claims that the landlord was now making, and the parties could file any further evidence.
The tenancy ended on the 22 January 2026. The landlord took possession of the property on the 21 January 2026 Mr Shukla completed an inspection. A copy of the inspection report completed by Mr Shukla was provided to the Tribunal. The report overview reports the condition of the property as messy and notes the damage as: The property was in the mess. There were multiple holes and damages in the walls of lounge, sperate toilet, bedroom-4,Lights missing in the Lounge, Bedrrom-1&2Laundry two big hole. Damage in the back of the bedroom-2Door Handle missing in the bedroom-2Rubbish in the backyard and behind the garage Window glass broken in the Lounge-2 (near kitchen)Oven door broken and stove 2 element not working. Small room beside the garage lot of stuff and rubbish in there Lawn mowing needs to be done Extract fan not working in the bathroom Mould in the separate toilet ceiling in the bedroomLounge-2 door scratch marks on the door.
Mr Shukla today confirmed that the claims that the landlord was making were: a. Insurance excess of $10,000.00 for damage to each room. b. Carpet and installation whole house. c. Rubbish removal and cleaning $3400.00 d. The filing fee.
The property is a 60+ years old brink and tile 4-bedroom home on a large section. The tenants have lived at the property since 18 July 2022. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of the inspection report at the beginning of the tenancy that shows the condition of the property at that time.
Mr Shukla became the property manager six months before the tenancy ended. He says that during an routine inspection he noticed that the tenant was keeping dogs at the property which they were not permitted to do. He gave the tenants a breach notice for keeping dogs and it appears from the correspondence provided to the Tribunal that the tenants decided to move not long after that as they did not want to remove their dogs. Did the tenants leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all of their rubbish?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied from the inspection report provided and the evidence of Mr Shukla that the tenants did not leave the property in a reasonably clean condition and did not remove all their rubbish.
Mr Shukla’s description of the property being left in a mess is accurate. The photographs show that the tenants have simply taken what they wanted and left all their other belongings behind. There is a lot of large old furniture left behind and in the garage there is also considerable furniture, lounge suites and mattresses. In an area where the tenants’ dogs slept there are two mattresses and bedding, that Ms Shukla describes as being covered in dog faeces.
Mr Shukla tells me that the landlord employed someone to clean up the house and yard and remove all rubbish. He has provided evidence that the landlord paid that person $3400.00.
Whilst that amount is considerable, it appears reasonable for the nature and extent of the work that was required to clean up this property to a reasonable standard and remove the tenant’s belongings and rubbish left behind.
I award the landlord this cost.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the property?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the carpets, put holes in numerous walls throughout the property, broke a window in the lounge, broke the door off the stove, and damaged paint work on walls , windows and doors and walls throughout the house from where the dogs had scratched.
At today’s hearing Mr Shukla produced a quote from Scope Works Limited dated 12 February for repair works to the property. That quote details work required in each room of the house. That quote was provided to the landlord’s insurers Tower Insurance who then assessed what work would be covered by insurance and the insurance excess for that work.
The landlord seeks the insurance excess for 10 rooms at $1000.00 per room.
The landlord says that the carpet was not covered in the quote and says that this is additional to the insurance claim.
Mr Shukla confirmed that the landlord has not yet done any of the work it is claiming for.
I then learned that the landlord has now sold this property on or about the 18 March. A google search of the property conducted during the hearing and shown to Mr Shukla, has the sale photographs which show that the property has been cleaned and cleared, but that not much or indeed any, of the work claimed by the landlord as damage needing repair had not been done before the property was sold. The only difference was that the carpet had been removed.
Mr Shukla tells me that he is not sure what if any work was done but accepts that the photographs appear to show the house that has not been remediated.
There is no evidence that the landlord has suffered any loss. The claimed losses by the landlord will never be realised as the landlord has not and does not intend to carry out any repair work quoted or do reinstate the carpet.
The landlord provided no evidence that the landlord had suffered a diminution in value of the property on sale.
Given that the landlord has suffered no loss, then the landlord’s claim for costs for repair of the property are not proven and therefore dismissed. Filing fee.
The landlord has not proved the bulk of its claims and therefore I do not award the filing fee or grant name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431268 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Esperanto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431268 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Esperanto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions